Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add scripts/oss-fuzz/build.sh

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 25.06.2024 14:39, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:40 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 25.06.2024 13:15, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:17 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21.06.2024 21:14, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/scripts/oss-fuzz/build.sh
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>>>> +#!/bin/bash -eu
>>>>> +# Copyright 2024 Google LLC
>>>>> +#
>>>>> +# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
>>>>> +# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
>>>>> +# You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>>>> +#
>>>>> +#      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>>>> +#
>>>>> +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>>>> +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>>>> +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or 
>>>>> implied.
>>>>> +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>>>>> +# limitations under the License.
>>>>> +#
>>>>> +################################################################################
>>>>
>>>> I'm a little concerned here, but maybe I shouldn't be. According to what
>>>> I'm reading, the Apache 2.0 license is at least not entirely compatible
>>>> with GPLv2. While apparently the issue is solely with linking in Apache-
>>>> licensed code, I wonder whether us not having a respective file under
>>>> ./LICENSES/ (and no pre-cooked SPDX identifier to use) actually has a
>>>> reason possibly excluding the use of such code in the project.
>>>>
>>>>> +cd xen
>>>>> +./configure clang=y --disable-stubdom --disable-pvshim --disable-docs 
>>>>> --disable-xen
>>>>> +make clang=y -C tools/include
>>>>> +make clang=y -C tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator libfuzzer-harness
>>>>> +cp tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/libfuzzer-harness 
>>>>> $OUT/x86_instruction_emulator
>>>>
>>>> In addition to what Julien said, I further think that filename / directory
>>>> name are too generic for a file with this pretty specific contents.
>>>
>>> I don't really get your concern here?
>>
>> The thing that is built is specifically a x86 emulator piece of fuzzing
>> binary. Neither the directory name nor the file name contain either x86
>> or (at least) emul.
> 
> Because this build script is not necessarily restricted to build only
> this one harness in the future. Right now that's the only one that has
> a suitable libfuzzer harness, but the reason this build script is here
> is to be easily able to add additional fuzzing binaries without the
> need to open PRs on the oss-fuzz repo, which as I understand no one
> was willing to do in the xen community due to the CLA. Now that the
> integration is going to be in oss-fuzz, the only thing you have to do
> in the future is add more stuff to this script to get fuzzed. Anything
> that's compiled with libfuzzer and copied to $OUT will be picked up by
> oss-fuzz automatically. Makes sense?

It does, yes. Yet nothing like that was said in the description. How
should anyone have known there are future possibilities with this script?

Jan